> Good discussion, guys.
>
> I settled the matter for myself years ago. It's all about intent.
> Targeting a single caller? Compiling scientific data? Capturing BG
> sound for a film? Pushing an activist cause? All different intents
> requiring different approaches.
>
> While much of my work has loftier goals, the sole intent of my nature =
> recording activities is to bring back sweet "ear candy" for my
> listeners, most of whom are urban dwellers. So I first try to avoid
> anthrophony as much as possible (which is itself an editing decision). =
> And when man-made sounds intrude, as they inevitably do, I edit around =
> them -- carefully, but without guilt. I fully understand that I'm
> cobbling together a sanitized illusion, but that's the aesthetic I'm
> after. To me, it's no less honest than the nature photographer who
> might capture a lovely wild landscape mere steps from the paved
> highway where his vehicle stands parked on the shoulder.
Hi Curt,
I would like to remove the word "honest" from the discussion if possible :)=
I do not think that the creation of illusion or fantasy is necessarily a mo=
ral or ethical issue as the word can sometimes imply. Guilt should not be a=
factor in the editing of recordings.
What I find interesting is how we all are after this same aesthetic - we al=
l collectively make this choice to edit out man. So far, each of us has con=
firmed this. If aliens were to come down to Earth and only listen to our na=
ture recordings and view our wildlife documentaries, they might be tempted =
to see a planet rich in wildlife and brimming with species. Yet it seems th=
at we are facing the worst environmental crisis we have ever seen as a spec=
ies, and one that we have presumably created.
So not only is it interesting to me that we all enjoy creating the illusion=
, our audience also enjoys the illusion. In many cases we are both the crea=
tors and audience. This is fascinating.
|